Kevin Smith—writer/director of "Clerks" and "Dogma,"among other films—is returning to his indie roots with the self-distribution of his latest movie, "Red State." He talks about his motivations here. An eye-opening read.
Kevin Smith Returns to His Indie Roots
Kevin Smith—writer/director of "Clerks" and "Dogma,"among other films—is returning to his indie roots with the self-distribution of his latest movie, "Red State." He talks about his motivations here. An eye-opening read.
Amazing Animation—Nick Cross's "The Pig Farmer"
Nick Cross's bio from the ASIFA-Hollywood site: Nick Cross is a self taught animator/independent filmmaker who also works commercially. His professional credits range from music videos to television. While working a full schedule, Nick is able to animate short films entirely on his own to a standard higher than most. Some of his films include "The Waif of Persephone" and "Yellow Cake."
He recently completed "The Pig Farmer" which is can be viewed here. All I can say is that he's an inspiration.
Changed Twitter Name to @Rochelle_Krause
I changed my name on Twitter to read "Rochelle_Krause" instead of "rochellekrause." I knew I couldn't use spaces in the name but I didn't know I could just use an underscore. It looks better that way, more intuitive.
Animation Oscar Nominations
CartoonBrew has the animated short and feature Oscar nominations here with links to info about the shorts. I feel for Bill Plympton, he said on his blog that an Oscar nomination for "The Cow Who Wanted to be a Hamburger" which surprised me considering how long and successful his career has been. Maybe he meant that a nomination would give his career a boost.
Plympton also said that all of the short nominations are "computer films." I'm not sure if that's accurate. Teddy Newton's "Day and Night's" characters are—according to this explanation—2-D animation with 3-D animation existing inside of them that reflects the characters's emotions. This video gives an explanation.
Based on the clips I've seen of this film—and the Academy's alleged preferences for both West Coast animators and 3-D animation—I believe Newton will walk away with the Oscar. I'm also intrigued by the idea of this film and its execution and look forward to seeing it in its entirety (haven't seen Toy Story 3.)
The only other short film I have any familiarity with is "Madagascar, A Journey Diary." I saw this still from the film that blew me away. I've also seen scenes of the film and it not only looks like a watercolored travel diary but it includes some great technical shots. I can definitely see why this was nominated.
Plympton also said that all of the short nominations are "computer films." I'm not sure if that's accurate. Teddy Newton's "Day and Night's" characters are—according to this explanation—2-D animation with 3-D animation existing inside of them that reflects the characters's emotions. This video gives an explanation.
Based on the clips I've seen of this film—and the Academy's alleged preferences for both West Coast animators and 3-D animation—I believe Newton will walk away with the Oscar. I'm also intrigued by the idea of this film and its execution and look forward to seeing it in its entirety (haven't seen Toy Story 3.)
The only other short film I have any familiarity with is "Madagascar, A Journey Diary." I saw this still from the film that blew me away. I've also seen scenes of the film and it not only looks like a watercolored travel diary but it includes some great technical shots. I can definitely see why this was nominated.
After a quick search, I found the film for download here. This is surprising because I thought films online were ineligible for Oscar consideration. Plympton said his "Santa: The Fascist Years" —one of his recent best films, I think—wasn't eligible for Oscar consideration when it was completed.
The other short nominations:
"Let's Pollute"
"The Gruffalo"
"The Lost Thing"
Best of luck to all of the nominees!
I'm on Twitter @RochelleKrause
I set up a Twitter account to share my short bursts of DIY animation brain farts! You don't want to miss that!
American Film Industry Declining Like Japanese Anime?
 |
| Yutaka Yamamoto holds up a poster of a new anime series, "Fractale," at his office in Tokyo. (Yoshiyuki Suzuki) |
This recent article discusses the now two decades decline of Japanese anime. One producer, Yutaka Yamamoto, places most of the blame on "the domestic industry [becoming] glutted with similar anime styles." He also laments the "the priority has been on quantity." This isn't surprising to any fan of anime.
I have only three favorite anime series: StarBlazers, Battle of the Planets and Cowboy Bebop. It could be argued that these series look distinct from each other but they do resemble other anime series. This is most likely why I watch little anime; I feel that I'm watching remakes of other series full of generic characters.
I fear this is the path that American live-action filmmaking is taking. With such a heavy reliance on tentpole and superhero stories that focus on the angst of their protagonists, American films are chasing away some their audience.
I also believe that the focus on quantity (otherwise known as "greed") is what killed Disney's hand-drawn animation business. After "The Lion King," Disney became greedy and started producing more theatrical and straight-to-video films and labeling them "instant classics." They were anything but classic. Instead, they were poorly-developed pieces of disposable art.
Additionally, Yamamoto criticizes himself and others for focusing on creating cutesy characters that they thought would be sure things instead of focusing on originality.
Sound familiar?
Hello, Transformers!
Final Animatic Update 1—Sounddogs.com
I am now officially working on the final animatic for my film. Usually there's just one animatic made. But since I want this to look as good as I can get it, I made a quick, down n' dirty version before making the clean one.
I've just started with the opening titles and am making myself giggle with the sound effects I'm using! Currently I use one source for sound effects, Sounddogs.com. What I love about this site is it's ease of use. You type in what you're looking for in the search box; a list appears with prices and descriptions; you click on the file and listen to it; you download it and use. SIMPLE!!!
I used Sounddogs for my Plympton School film and it was a breeze. I highly recommend their site. Of course, if you know of a site that's just as good or better, please share. Thanks!
I've just started with the opening titles and am making myself giggle with the sound effects I'm using! Currently I use one source for sound effects, Sounddogs.com. What I love about this site is it's ease of use. You type in what you're looking for in the search box; a list appears with prices and descriptions; you click on the file and listen to it; you download it and use. SIMPLE!!!
I used Sounddogs for my Plympton School film and it was a breeze. I highly recommend their site. Of course, if you know of a site that's just as good or better, please share. Thanks!
Studies from Looney Tunes Golden Collection Vol. 6
I bought the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Vol. 6 for ONE cartoon, "Rocket-Bye Baby." I won't go into the quality of this collection too much—I think it's lacking—but this is the sixth volume; maybe the preceding five are better.
I spent almost four hours yesterday watching this collection for the first time in its entirety (most via fast forward) becasue these 1940's cartoons are the reason I fell in love with animation. With the help of John K.'s analysis, I've learned why I prefer those cartoons to the dreck on t.v. today. It's a matter of the characters being drawn as three-dimensional forms, not 2D, angular cutouts. And, of course, the animation is superior to anything on t.v. today. If these classic cartoons are what excite me, then watching and studying them will inspire me to emulate their skill. I saw a lot of the dry brush "zip" effect. I saw some great acting. And I saw some beautifully rendered backgrounds.
Some of the studies I did from these disks are below. I was particularly concerned about how I was going to draw the brick facade and windows for the first pan shot. Why reinvent the wheel? By going to this source, I found several examples of both and now know how I can approach it.
FYI, the notes on these pages are written in both my left and right hands (hence the difference in clarity). I'm right-handed but am training to write in my left to save the right for drawing. When Frank Frazetta had his stroke, he had to paint with his left. You never know when you might need a particular skill.
I spent almost four hours yesterday watching this collection for the first time in its entirety (most via fast forward) becasue these 1940's cartoons are the reason I fell in love with animation. With the help of John K.'s analysis, I've learned why I prefer those cartoons to the dreck on t.v. today. It's a matter of the characters being drawn as three-dimensional forms, not 2D, angular cutouts. And, of course, the animation is superior to anything on t.v. today. If these classic cartoons are what excite me, then watching and studying them will inspire me to emulate their skill. I saw a lot of the dry brush "zip" effect. I saw some great acting. And I saw some beautifully rendered backgrounds.
Some of the studies I did from these disks are below. I was particularly concerned about how I was going to draw the brick facade and windows for the first pan shot. Why reinvent the wheel? By going to this source, I found several examples of both and now know how I can approach it.
FYI, the notes on these pages are written in both my left and right hands (hence the difference in clarity). I'm right-handed but am training to write in my left to save the right for drawing. When Frank Frazetta had his stroke, he had to paint with his left. You never know when you might need a particular skill.
Practice Drawings
 |
| Based on Lesson Four of the John K. curriculum. Copied from "Advanced Animation" by Preston Blair. Also a copy from MAD Magazine No. 2, Jack Davis. |
 |
| More copies from MAD Magazine No. 2, Jack Davis. I love the way Davis does expressions and hands! |
Man vs. Art Episode 30—Unleash the Cartoonist Within
Commuting on my LONG-ASSED bus ride to work this morning (an express bus takes one hour and 35 minutes to go the 14.6 miles from the Bronx to Tribeca! WTF?! I could ride my damn bike in the same amount of time!), I finished listening to Episode 30 of Raul Aguirre, Jr.'s Man vs. Art podcast. I know this episode dates from 9/8/10 but his podcasts are so full of helpful information that I'm listening to each carefully AND taking notes.
This episode's title is "Unleash the Cartoonist Within." I'll summarize what I think are the highlights. I strongly suggest that you listen to the podcast in its entirety to get the full effect (especially Aguirre's badass voice!):
1. The differences between cartoon drawing and illustrating. Cartooning suggests, simplifies, exaggerates, distorts, indicates, interprets, expresses and favors visual clichés. Illustration reproduces, mirrors, specifies and represents.
2. Simplicity allows the audience to project their own imagination on to the drawing thereby creating a personal involvement. Gaps are left for the audience to fill with their own imaginations.
3. Copying is a good thing, especially for beginners. Copying your favorite artists contributes to developing your own style. (I was glad to hear this because I've been copying the early Will Elder, Harvey Kurtzman and Wally Wood MAD Magazine art. And it HAS helped improve my drawing!)
4. Learning to cartoon begins with constant doodling. This allows for technical practice and learning plus it stimulates the free association process which is integral to successful cartooning.
5. ONE Man vs. Art rule: cartoon characters should NEVER laugh at the situations in which they're participating. (I can understand that one.)
6. Doctors in cartoons should always be male and nurses always female to communicate quickly and clearly. (I disagree with this one. I think the white robe and stethoscope are the visual clues to communicate a doctor regardless of gender while scrubs communicate nurse or surgeon.)
7. People communicate non-verbally with body language, facial expressions and hand positions.
The podcast additionally contains exercises to put these ideas into practice.
Man vs. Art nails it again!
Useful Thumbnailing Exercise from Temple of the Seven Golden Camels
Mark Kennedy at his Temple of the Seven Golden Camels blog describes an exercise he does in thumbnailing while watching a DVD. I've read elsewhere that it's a helpful practice to draw while watching tv, especially if it's something you don't want to pay attention to.
Practice, practice, practice!
Are Values Missing From American Films?
Politically, I am a left-leaning person. I don't consider myself an ideologue; I occasionally agree with non-left views. I limit my exposure, however, to opposing views because I find them poorly argued, hyperbolic or unnecessarily insulting. Ultimately, I don't think most people's minds change unless they, or someone close to them, has a personal experience that forces them to see things differently.
In my humble opinion, Andrew Breitbart's BigHollywood blog too often resorts to the negatives I listed above. I believe reducing films to "liberal" or "conservative" is inaccurate and pointless. I did, however, come across this piece—by Lawrence Meyers—whose content I wholly agreed with despite being initially turned off by the last sentence.
But the more I thought about that last sentence, the more I began to realize that the author may have a valid point. Here's the last paragraph in question:
"In a way, however, it almost doesn’t matter what the reason is [for decreased box office admissions]. The numbers speak for themselves. In the face of declining admissions, Hollywood should be improving its product, not relying on higher ticket prices for 3D and IMAX (which I believe are fads, anyway). I’ve written extensively on why this doesn’t happen, and BH [BigHollywood] readers know that Hollywood repeatedly refuses to create content that reflects the values of much of America."
So I was nodding in agreement during the entire article until I hit that last sentence and was like, "Values?!" I have a knee jerk reaction to that word since it's often used by the Right to flaunt their phony superiority to the Left.
Then I calmed down (LOL) and thought back to Robert McKee's book Story, pg 17:
"The final cause for the decline of story runs very deep. Values, the positive/negative charges of life, are at the soul of our art. The writer shapes story around a perception of what's worth living for, what's worth dying for, what's foolish to pursue, the meaning of justice, truth—the essential values. In decades past, writer and society more or less agreed on these questions, but more and more ours has become an age of moral and ethical cynicism, relativism and subjectivism—a great confusion of values. As the family disintegrates and sexual antagonisms rise, who, for example, feels he understands the nature of love? And how, if you do have a conviction, do you express it to an ever-more skeptical audience?
This erosion of values has brought with it a corresponding erosion of story. Unlike writers in the past, we can assume nothing. First we must dig deeply into life to uncover new insights, new refinements of value and meaning, then create a story vehicle that expresses our interpretation to an increasingly agnostic world. No small task."
Now, Meyers and McKee may be defining values differently; they apparently occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum. But I do think they're both saying the same thing. Hollywood doesn't create content that reflects the values of much of America because American values have become so dispersed and disparate that filmmakers don't even know what those values are.
In addition to the values problem, I believe that the handful of white, middle-aged men who greenlight ALL of the movies we see live such a limited, privileged lifestyle that they honestly just don't know nor understand how other people live. Why are there so many movies about drug abusers, prostitutes, bank robbers, other criminals and the dregs of society? Do people really curse as much as characters in movies?
If we take the time to dig deeply—as McKee suggests—we can provide value-based entertainment that appeals more than the current batch of crap.
In my humble opinion, Andrew Breitbart's BigHollywood blog too often resorts to the negatives I listed above. I believe reducing films to "liberal" or "conservative" is inaccurate and pointless. I did, however, come across this piece—by Lawrence Meyers—whose content I wholly agreed with despite being initially turned off by the last sentence.
But the more I thought about that last sentence, the more I began to realize that the author may have a valid point. Here's the last paragraph in question:
"In a way, however, it almost doesn’t matter what the reason is [for decreased box office admissions]. The numbers speak for themselves. In the face of declining admissions, Hollywood should be improving its product, not relying on higher ticket prices for 3D and IMAX (which I believe are fads, anyway). I’ve written extensively on why this doesn’t happen, and BH [BigHollywood] readers know that Hollywood repeatedly refuses to create content that reflects the values of much of America."
So I was nodding in agreement during the entire article until I hit that last sentence and was like, "Values?!" I have a knee jerk reaction to that word since it's often used by the Right to flaunt their phony superiority to the Left.
Then I calmed down (LOL) and thought back to Robert McKee's book Story, pg 17:
"The final cause for the decline of story runs very deep. Values, the positive/negative charges of life, are at the soul of our art. The writer shapes story around a perception of what's worth living for, what's worth dying for, what's foolish to pursue, the meaning of justice, truth—the essential values. In decades past, writer and society more or less agreed on these questions, but more and more ours has become an age of moral and ethical cynicism, relativism and subjectivism—a great confusion of values. As the family disintegrates and sexual antagonisms rise, who, for example, feels he understands the nature of love? And how, if you do have a conviction, do you express it to an ever-more skeptical audience?
This erosion of values has brought with it a corresponding erosion of story. Unlike writers in the past, we can assume nothing. First we must dig deeply into life to uncover new insights, new refinements of value and meaning, then create a story vehicle that expresses our interpretation to an increasingly agnostic world. No small task."
Now, Meyers and McKee may be defining values differently; they apparently occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum. But I do think they're both saying the same thing. Hollywood doesn't create content that reflects the values of much of America because American values have become so dispersed and disparate that filmmakers don't even know what those values are.
In addition to the values problem, I believe that the handful of white, middle-aged men who greenlight ALL of the movies we see live such a limited, privileged lifestyle that they honestly just don't know nor understand how other people live. Why are there so many movies about drug abusers, prostitutes, bank robbers, other criminals and the dregs of society? Do people really curse as much as characters in movies?
If we take the time to dig deeply—as McKee suggests—we can provide value-based entertainment that appeals more than the current batch of crap.
Rough Animatic 100% DONE!
Whew! That was a challenge, figuring out the shots while learning Storyboard Pro 2.
But it was worth it. I'm completely satisfied with my shot selection. I now have a clearer idea of what's happening when and the staging. Now comes the new challenge: making a presentable, final animatic. This is the version I'm going to be showing people, particularly my Plympton Film School classmates. This is the version I want to be judged. Here's what it's going to need:
1. Improved, consistent drawing. This includes designs of Honey and Luthor that I will maintain throughout the project. Also includes appropriate expressions. I predict this step taking the longest since I'll have to creatively search—through thumbnails—the best poses and expressions for each scene.
2. Tone. I've noticed that many professional storyboards contain gray tone. I'm going to remove all of the color from the final animatic and use just black, white and gray.
3. Final sets. I need to be consistent and logical about the placement of furniture in the bedroom and the placement of the bathroom fixtures.
4. Sound effects and temporary music. This final animatic will be used by the composer to create the music. I'll add temporary music to give myself an idea of what I want and what works. The sound effects will transfer to the final animation step.
This is a lot of work especially with my still-evolving skills. But a deadline's necessary so here it is:
FINAL ANIMATIC WILL BE COMPLETED BY MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2011.
That gives me approximately 7 weeks. I'll create a new bar graph to chart the progress.
Let's get it started!
But it was worth it. I'm completely satisfied with my shot selection. I now have a clearer idea of what's happening when and the staging. Now comes the new challenge: making a presentable, final animatic. This is the version I'm going to be showing people, particularly my Plympton Film School classmates. This is the version I want to be judged. Here's what it's going to need:
1. Improved, consistent drawing. This includes designs of Honey and Luthor that I will maintain throughout the project. Also includes appropriate expressions. I predict this step taking the longest since I'll have to creatively search—through thumbnails—the best poses and expressions for each scene.
2. Tone. I've noticed that many professional storyboards contain gray tone. I'm going to remove all of the color from the final animatic and use just black, white and gray.
3. Final sets. I need to be consistent and logical about the placement of furniture in the bedroom and the placement of the bathroom fixtures.
4. Sound effects and temporary music. This final animatic will be used by the composer to create the music. I'll add temporary music to give myself an idea of what I want and what works. The sound effects will transfer to the final animation step.
This is a lot of work especially with my still-evolving skills. But a deadline's necessary so here it is:
FINAL ANIMATIC WILL BE COMPLETED BY MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2011.
That gives me approximately 7 weeks. I'll create a new bar graph to chart the progress.
Let's get it started!
Rough Animatic 91% Done!
Wow, this doing-a-little-every-day approach really works! Between 2 days ago and today I completed 11% more of the scenes for the rough animatic. Way ahead of schedule to complete this step. Woo hoo!!
Business Advice from M dot StrangE
M dot StrangE first gained national attention in 2007 when his feature-length animated film, "We Are the Strange," premiered at Sundance. Since then, he's chronicled the making of his second film at his blog. I find that he regularly has words of wisdom like in this post.
Framed Ink Review
Another Christmas gift from my parents (love you guys!) is Framed Ink: Drawing and Composition for Visual Storytellers by Marcos Mateu-Mestre, visual concept, animation layout and graphic novel artist whose credits include "Balto" and "The Prince of Egypt." I was so eager to absorb the information in this book that I opened it before Christmas.
I read it in one sitting and highly recommend it to filmmakers and comic artists. It's not a huge book but it's hugely packed with visual explanations of the text, each image clearly describing the principle being discussed. I especially liked the opening chapter, "General Thoughts on Narrative Art." He listed these priorities when approaching one's visual story:
1. What are we trying to say in our narration as a whole?
2. What mood do we want our audience to be in throughout the story and at any given time within a specific sequence or shot?
3. What is the function of this moment within the story?
4. How are we going to take our audience there?
5. What in our drawing is contributing to the general statement?
6. What can we leave out without changing what we are trying to say?
I'll be sure to keep all of the above in mind as I work on my film.
I read it in one sitting and highly recommend it to filmmakers and comic artists. It's not a huge book but it's hugely packed with visual explanations of the text, each image clearly describing the principle being discussed. I especially liked the opening chapter, "General Thoughts on Narrative Art." He listed these priorities when approaching one's visual story:
1. What are we trying to say in our narration as a whole?
2. What mood do we want our audience to be in throughout the story and at any given time within a specific sequence or shot?
3. What is the function of this moment within the story?
4. How are we going to take our audience there?
5. What in our drawing is contributing to the general statement?
6. What can we leave out without changing what we are trying to say?
I'll be sure to keep all of the above in mind as I work on my film.
Rough Animatic 80% Done!
I'm at the end of the rough animatic now with only 9 out of 45 scenes needing to be completed.
At this rate, I will finish before my Sunday, January 23, 2011 deadline.
Then I make a NEW deadline for the NEXT step!
Keep it moving, folks!
At this rate, I will finish before my Sunday, January 23, 2011 deadline.
Then I make a NEW deadline for the NEXT step!
Keep it moving, folks!
Mark Kennedy's 3 C's of Story
Storyboard artist Mark Kennedy breaks down story to three C's: Clarity, Character and Conflict. He includes examples of Chef-Boy-Ar-Dee commercials to make his point. A helpful read.
Inspiring Read About the Creative Process
THIS article totally lit a fire under my butt! In the immediate aftermath of reading it, I completed almost six hours of work on my film's rough animatic, more than I'd done in the last two weeks.
Pen Densham—writer of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and writer/director of "Moll Flanders," among other accomplishments—describes how he gets past the self-doubt to allow the creative process to flow. Some highlights:
• Ignore advice that interferes with your natural process. What works for one may not work for another.
• Find your own "music": create from who YOU are instead of trying to be someone else.
• Recognize that the creative process is not a straight line; it often takes diversions to get to the final place you've envisioned.
• "Try to see your writing [creating] as adventure, imaginary play. Surrender to your instincts. The ideas will flow more easily." In other words, you can't force creativity and ideas.
• Don't worry about being totally original. There are only about seven plots from which all other stories are derived. "Creativity reinvents the world."
• Ignore your doubts, the internal critic.
Densham quotes copywriter Andrew Cavanagh's terrific advice about dealing with writer's block, advice that can be applied to any creative process.
These articles really spoke to me because I regularly allow too much self-doubt to creep into my brain. It's those doubts that push me away from my computer or drawing table to other activities like watching endless amounts of tv and movies, anything but creating. Too often I think that I'm going too slowly with my project or not doing one of the steps correctly…or something. What I'm slowly beginning to understand and internalize is that there's rarely one right way to be creative. Whatever process works for me is the process I should follow. There's always room for more efficiency but aside from that, I'm sticking to what WORKS.
More importantly, I'm training my brain to not care if "others" don't understand why my project is "taking so long." Every person who feels that way is NOT a creative person. They're not making something out of nothing, I AM! How would a non-animator possibly know how long it "should" take to make an animated film?! C'mon, man!! I tell them how long it takes, NOT the other way around!
Let's keep going!
Pen Densham—writer of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and writer/director of "Moll Flanders," among other accomplishments—describes how he gets past the self-doubt to allow the creative process to flow. Some highlights:
• Ignore advice that interferes with your natural process. What works for one may not work for another.
• Find your own "music": create from who YOU are instead of trying to be someone else.
• Recognize that the creative process is not a straight line; it often takes diversions to get to the final place you've envisioned.
• "Try to see your writing [creating] as adventure, imaginary play. Surrender to your instincts. The ideas will flow more easily." In other words, you can't force creativity and ideas.
• Don't worry about being totally original. There are only about seven plots from which all other stories are derived. "Creativity reinvents the world."
• Ignore your doubts, the internal critic.
Densham quotes copywriter Andrew Cavanagh's terrific advice about dealing with writer's block, advice that can be applied to any creative process.
These articles really spoke to me because I regularly allow too much self-doubt to creep into my brain. It's those doubts that push me away from my computer or drawing table to other activities like watching endless amounts of tv and movies, anything but creating. Too often I think that I'm going too slowly with my project or not doing one of the steps correctly…or something. What I'm slowly beginning to understand and internalize is that there's rarely one right way to be creative. Whatever process works for me is the process I should follow. There's always room for more efficiency but aside from that, I'm sticking to what WORKS.
More importantly, I'm training my brain to not care if "others" don't understand why my project is "taking so long." Every person who feels that way is NOT a creative person. They're not making something out of nothing, I AM! How would a non-animator possibly know how long it "should" take to make an animated film?! C'mon, man!! I tell them how long it takes, NOT the other way around!
Let's keep going!
Gag Cartoons
I've always entertained the idea of being a gag or editorial cartoonist. The idea of telling a story in one panel was an alluring challenge. I admire those who do it well.
I inadvertently created an opportunity for myself to create a weekly cartoon at my job. At first, I rejected the the idea of doing the cartoon myself despite my companion enthusiastically suggesting otherwise. I thought it would be too time-consuming during a period when I wanted to concentrate on improving my drawing and make films.
Then I started reading "The Art of Harvey Kurtzman: The Mad Comic Genius of Comics" by Denis Kitchen and Paul Buhle. It was a Christmas present from my lovely parents (thank you, Mommy and Daddy!) that I hated having to put down. Not only is it full of wonderful Kurtzman art—roughs and finals—but the story of Kurtzman's professional career is fascinating.
I was struck by all of the different types of work Kurtzman did—posters, magazines, comics, advertising. He just kept drawing. It suddenly struck me that I need to do the same, just keep drawing. And doing a gag cartoon that requires no approval from anyone else is a GIFT! By giving myself a deadline of one finished cartoon per week, I'm forcing myself to stretch my creative muscles.
How silly of me to have almost passed on this tremendous opportunity! Although the cartoons I create are for my paying job and are therefore the property of my employer, I can still put them in my portfolio. So everyone wins!
Below are my original rough layout, where I was figuring out how to place all of the elements in the space so it communicates clearly. Below that is a rough pencil drawing that I will refine for the final. The text of the sign was typed in Photoshop.
I inadvertently created an opportunity for myself to create a weekly cartoon at my job. At first, I rejected the the idea of doing the cartoon myself despite my companion enthusiastically suggesting otherwise. I thought it would be too time-consuming during a period when I wanted to concentrate on improving my drawing and make films.
Then I started reading "The Art of Harvey Kurtzman: The Mad Comic Genius of Comics" by Denis Kitchen and Paul Buhle. It was a Christmas present from my lovely parents (thank you, Mommy and Daddy!) that I hated having to put down. Not only is it full of wonderful Kurtzman art—roughs and finals—but the story of Kurtzman's professional career is fascinating.
I was struck by all of the different types of work Kurtzman did—posters, magazines, comics, advertising. He just kept drawing. It suddenly struck me that I need to do the same, just keep drawing. And doing a gag cartoon that requires no approval from anyone else is a GIFT! By giving myself a deadline of one finished cartoon per week, I'm forcing myself to stretch my creative muscles.
How silly of me to have almost passed on this tremendous opportunity! Although the cartoons I create are for my paying job and are therefore the property of my employer, I can still put them in my portfolio. So everyone wins!
Below are my original rough layout, where I was figuring out how to place all of the elements in the space so it communicates clearly. Below that is a rough pencil drawing that I will refine for the final. The text of the sign was typed in Photoshop.
Jerry Seinfeld's "Don't Break the Chain"
I downloaded this pdf file via the Writer's Store although I had to go through the motions of "purchasing" it (probably so they can collect information about me.) Technically, you can create it yourself easily in any page layout program or maybe even Word.
It's based on a productivity idea of Jerry Seinfeld's. Here's the blurb from the Writer's Store:
Years ago, when software developer Brad Isaac was performing stand-up at open mic nights, he received his best advice ever from the already-famous comedian.
It's based on a productivity idea of Jerry Seinfeld's. Here's the blurb from the Writer's Store:
Years ago, when software developer Brad Isaac was performing stand-up at open mic nights, he received his best advice ever from the already-famous comedian.
Seinfeld explained his method for success: each January, he hangs a large year-at-a-glance calendar on his wall and, for every day he wrote new material, he had the exquisite pleasure that can only come from drawing a big red "X" over that day.
Drawing those Xs got to be pretty fun and rewarding, so he kept doing it. Eventually, he began to create a chain of red Xs.
The idea was to never break that chain.
Not only does this approach program the body and mind to sit down and write [or any other creative activity] daily – it also motivates you to continue that beautiful string of big, red Xs. If you don't write/draw, etc. one day, you don't get to draw the X.
It doesn't particularly matter what you write/draw, etc.. It can be anything, as long as you're actively and routinely pushing yourself.
The calendar pdf download is simply boxes numbered 1-365. I decided to use green check marks instead of red X's, it just feels friendlier. I might also use red X's to indicate the days I don't accomplish any work.
I still haven't decided if I'm going to do this for just the film, for a combination of the film and drawing practice, or separate ones for the film and drawing practice. When I decide, I'll post them so you can see the progress.
Acting in Animation—Part II
Another helpful article about acting in animation, written by Doron A. Meir, can be found here. It astutely explains the primary elements for creating believable and interesting acting in animated characters. Having taken Robert McKee's screenwriting seminar and read his book, Story, (a book I HIGHLY recommend if you're interested in being a storyteller) I was fascinated by the similarities between McKee's and Meir's comments regarding inhabiting a character. It's this inhabiting of character that allows the creator to truthfully depict the choices and reactions that each individual character would have in that specific situation.
It seems that regardless if one is writing a character or drawing, the same concepts should be kept in mind. Creating is THINKING!
It seems that regardless if one is writing a character or drawing, the same concepts should be kept in mind. Creating is THINKING!
Acting in Animation—Part I
I recently discovered an article called Pulling Faces: as cartoon characters get more sophisticated, how do animators keep pace?" by Chloe Veltman that appeared in Sight & Sound, January 2003. It makes some really helpful observations about acting and animation that definitely got ME thinking! Here are some highlights:
• Walt Disney is credited for discovering in the 1930s that thinking leads to action and emotion. Cartoon characters, in order to be believable, had to move based on what their brains directed them to do.
• Animator Bill Plympton: "acting is the most important skill an animator can have with draftsmanship second and design, storytelling and entertaining further down the list."
• Animator Andreas Deja seconds Plympton's ranking of animation skills. My favorite quote from him is, "But at the end of the day, people respond to acting. They do not respond to a beautiful thing that doesn't have a soul."
• Konstantin Stanislavsky is credited for being the first who "outlined a technique for harnessing inner impulses to motivate outward actions. The transference of energy between thought and movement is what separates a believable, immersive performance form plain, bad acting."
• Animators have a fundamental difference from actors when creating a character; actors usually work from the inside out while animators often start with something outward—a voice track or storyboard—and build a character around it.
Ultimately, it's about inhabiting a character's head. The article ends with concerns about the acting skills of animators decreasing along with the decrease of nurturing young artists and mentoring.
After reading this article, I began to understand why I've been distant from my project for several weeks. I realized that I wasn't genuinely feeling the motivation of all of the characters in my film. I was approaching them too outwardly and not individually inhabiting them to truthfully communicate their emotions. I was focused on staging the scenes clearly—which is important—but I was losing the feeling.
I'll direct you to another article about animation and acting in another post.
• Walt Disney is credited for discovering in the 1930s that thinking leads to action and emotion. Cartoon characters, in order to be believable, had to move based on what their brains directed them to do.
• Animator Bill Plympton: "acting is the most important skill an animator can have with draftsmanship second and design, storytelling and entertaining further down the list."
• Animator Andreas Deja seconds Plympton's ranking of animation skills. My favorite quote from him is, "But at the end of the day, people respond to acting. They do not respond to a beautiful thing that doesn't have a soul."
• Konstantin Stanislavsky is credited for being the first who "outlined a technique for harnessing inner impulses to motivate outward actions. The transference of energy between thought and movement is what separates a believable, immersive performance form plain, bad acting."
• Animators have a fundamental difference from actors when creating a character; actors usually work from the inside out while animators often start with something outward—a voice track or storyboard—and build a character around it.
Ultimately, it's about inhabiting a character's head. The article ends with concerns about the acting skills of animators decreasing along with the decrease of nurturing young artists and mentoring.
After reading this article, I began to understand why I've been distant from my project for several weeks. I realized that I wasn't genuinely feeling the motivation of all of the characters in my film. I was approaching them too outwardly and not individually inhabiting them to truthfully communicate their emotions. I was focused on staging the scenes clearly—which is important—but I was losing the feeling.
I'll direct you to another article about animation and acting in another post.
Rough Animatic—Dry Brush Blur
I have a scene in my film where Luthor—relaxing in bed—is frightened by a sound. I needed to get him from his seated position on the bed to a kneeling position behind the side of the bed. At first I couldn't figure out how to move him smoothly. I had already used zip pans earlier in the film and didn't want to repeat that solution.
Then I recalled seeing in classic cartoons another possibility. I'm not sure what the technical name for it is, but John K. called it a Dry Brush FX. Using paint and brush, the cel painter created a blurry speed effect. I love the way it looks and it's the perfect solution for my problem. Below is the rough animatic version of the dry brush blur:
It's possible that there will be a filter in Animate Pro that will allow me to quickly and easily create this effect. If, however, it doesn't look the old school way, I'll do my best to recreate it manually. If I can pull it off, it'll look badass!
Then I recalled seeing in classic cartoons another possibility. I'm not sure what the technical name for it is, but John K. called it a Dry Brush FX. Using paint and brush, the cel painter created a blurry speed effect. I love the way it looks and it's the perfect solution for my problem. Below is the rough animatic version of the dry brush blur:
It's possible that there will be a filter in Animate Pro that will allow me to quickly and easily create this effect. If, however, it doesn't look the old school way, I'll do my best to recreate it manually. If I can pull it off, it'll look badass!
Toon Boom Storyboard Pro 2 Tutorial #5—The Closeup
Ah, the closeup! A very sensitive area for me.
Why? Because starting some time in the late 1980's or early 1990's, American film directors (and their non-American imitators) suddenly forgot that closeups have a purpose. They started using closeups CONSTANTLY! As a result, it's purpose has been undermined. Watch any movie or t.v. show today and you'll see what I mean.
Getting a camera all up in an actor's face should be done in only one situation: to show the audience the power of that moment as it registers on the person's face. Think about Vivian Leigh in "Gone With the Wind" when she walks into the triage. As the camera closes on her face, we feel her disgust and horror as it registers on her face. Then camera pulls back to reveal to the audience why she's reacting that way. Now that's filmmaking. The tension and power of the moment was heightened by using closeups sparingly.
Below is a closeup from my rough animatic:
Sherm Cohen's explanation of closeups in storyboards is here.
Why? Because starting some time in the late 1980's or early 1990's, American film directors (and their non-American imitators) suddenly forgot that closeups have a purpose. They started using closeups CONSTANTLY! As a result, it's purpose has been undermined. Watch any movie or t.v. show today and you'll see what I mean.
Getting a camera all up in an actor's face should be done in only one situation: to show the audience the power of that moment as it registers on the person's face. Think about Vivian Leigh in "Gone With the Wind" when she walks into the triage. As the camera closes on her face, we feel her disgust and horror as it registers on her face. Then camera pulls back to reveal to the audience why she's reacting that way. Now that's filmmaking. The tension and power of the moment was heightened by using closeups sparingly.
Below is a closeup from my rough animatic:
Sherm Cohen's explanation of closeups in storyboards is here.
Work for the Sake of Work?
In the December 2010/January 2011 issue of "Animation Magazine," I noticed this quote from the animation director of the "Yogi Bear" 3D movie extravaganza, Alex Orrelle, in response to a question regarding rebooting classic characters: "Look, we all roll our eyes every time a classic brand reboot is announced, but after we finish grumbling, we [the animation community] are happy for more opportunities to work in our craft. Ask the 80 animators [from Rhythm & Hues] who worked on Yogi Bear!"
I'm not sure how to feel about this. This dilemma exists in numerous fields: should one do crummy work for the experience and the resources to pay one's bills OR does one refuse to participate. I remember a quote years ago from Jodie Foster regarding her dearth of film roles after graduating from college. She said, "I decided not to do dreck." Not everyone is in the position to select that option. I'm personally torn. There is a value in getting experience even if it's in something crummy. I also wouldn't begrudge anyone making a living that doesn't involve criminal activities or negative results. Ultimately, the audience will determine if poorly created 3D reboots of classic characters is worth doing. To date, the Yogi Bear movie cost $80 million (not including marketing) and has earned $66 million. It could become a financial success once released overseas. But it seems to me that this did NOT capture people's imaginations. Which brings me to this next quote from the same article:
"As kids were very naïve, there was plenty of magic in watching two bears talking for seven minutes back then. In today's war for audience attention, that's not enough. Kids expect Yogi to be photo-real and reach out of the screen and poke them in the eye. The old Yogi and Boo-Boo of the 2D limited animation sitcoms don't automatically translate into a live-action family film, both in story and animation."
I find several things wrong here. First, if Yogi enthralled people in 2D back in the day, why would it not continue to enthrall in 2D today? Kids watch LOTS of 2D animation on t.v. Why is there this notion that something so basic needs a hugh technological updating? This isn't Logan's Run, a story set in the future therefore requiring technology to adequately realize the vision. Yogi was a hand-drawn cartoon. If it doesn't "automatically translate" outside of its original incarnation, why try to force it to fit this new form?
Second, notice he says "audience attention" not "audience engagement." Are we so "modern" that we require all of our visual entertainment to be in stereoscopic 3D? When watching t.v. or a movie, one doesn't look around oneself in 360 degrees. Instead, one sits in one spot (a chair) and stares straight ahead, focused on the action in front of us. It's not possible to swivel 360 degrees in a movie theater. If you look behind you, you'll miss what's going on in front of you! Who wants to spend their movie experience looking all around; we want to focus and to be engrossed. The images before us already have depth. Having objects fly out at us into our faces does NOTHING to enhance the experience. Zero, nada, zip, nilch.
Instead of these 3D movie-makers focusing on giving us a great story well-told, they give us a crummy, half-baked story combined with a vomiting of special effects.
The masses are speaking. Movie attendance was down in 2010 from 2009, which was down from 2008, and so on.
Let's focus on producing the best possible work instead of pooping out more cinematic crap! If we want long careers in the film industry, we have to consider the long-term implications of creating crap today that will convince audiences to stay home tomorrow. I've already put in place a personal moratorium for 2011; I'm not stepping foot in any theater for any movie. For the sake of the film industry, let's hope that others do the same.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. This dilemma exists in numerous fields: should one do crummy work for the experience and the resources to pay one's bills OR does one refuse to participate. I remember a quote years ago from Jodie Foster regarding her dearth of film roles after graduating from college. She said, "I decided not to do dreck." Not everyone is in the position to select that option. I'm personally torn. There is a value in getting experience even if it's in something crummy. I also wouldn't begrudge anyone making a living that doesn't involve criminal activities or negative results. Ultimately, the audience will determine if poorly created 3D reboots of classic characters is worth doing. To date, the Yogi Bear movie cost $80 million (not including marketing) and has earned $66 million. It could become a financial success once released overseas. But it seems to me that this did NOT capture people's imaginations. Which brings me to this next quote from the same article:
"As kids were very naïve, there was plenty of magic in watching two bears talking for seven minutes back then. In today's war for audience attention, that's not enough. Kids expect Yogi to be photo-real and reach out of the screen and poke them in the eye. The old Yogi and Boo-Boo of the 2D limited animation sitcoms don't automatically translate into a live-action family film, both in story and animation."
I find several things wrong here. First, if Yogi enthralled people in 2D back in the day, why would it not continue to enthrall in 2D today? Kids watch LOTS of 2D animation on t.v. Why is there this notion that something so basic needs a hugh technological updating? This isn't Logan's Run, a story set in the future therefore requiring technology to adequately realize the vision. Yogi was a hand-drawn cartoon. If it doesn't "automatically translate" outside of its original incarnation, why try to force it to fit this new form?
Second, notice he says "audience attention" not "audience engagement." Are we so "modern" that we require all of our visual entertainment to be in stereoscopic 3D? When watching t.v. or a movie, one doesn't look around oneself in 360 degrees. Instead, one sits in one spot (a chair) and stares straight ahead, focused on the action in front of us. It's not possible to swivel 360 degrees in a movie theater. If you look behind you, you'll miss what's going on in front of you! Who wants to spend their movie experience looking all around; we want to focus and to be engrossed. The images before us already have depth. Having objects fly out at us into our faces does NOTHING to enhance the experience. Zero, nada, zip, nilch.
Instead of these 3D movie-makers focusing on giving us a great story well-told, they give us a crummy, half-baked story combined with a vomiting of special effects.
The masses are speaking. Movie attendance was down in 2010 from 2009, which was down from 2008, and so on.
Let's focus on producing the best possible work instead of pooping out more cinematic crap! If we want long careers in the film industry, we have to consider the long-term implications of creating crap today that will convince audiences to stay home tomorrow. I've already put in place a personal moratorium for 2011; I'm not stepping foot in any theater for any movie. For the sake of the film industry, let's hope that others do the same.
Redefining Success
I was raised to believe—like the majority of Americans—that success means making a lot of money, living in a fancy house and driving a fancy car. Period. That's it. That's the entire definition of success in the USA. I've actually been criticized by people close to me for "not making money" and for working at "those" kinds of companies (in other words, unprestigious companies.) I suffered during some of the best time of human life—one's twenties and thirties—worried about making money. That's almost TWENTY YEARS of worrying about earning enough coin so I can not eat cat food when I'm no longer "employed."
Wow, there are so many things wrong with this model, I'm not sure where to begin!
First, success is how you define YOURSELF. You're the only person that can define your success. How can someone else possibly tell you if you're successful or not? If you feel successful, then you are. Period.
Second, I refuse to believe that we spiritual beings—having a human experience here on Earth in the Milky Way galaxy—are here for NO OTHER REASON than to spend our few years alive collecting as many as possible pieces of green paper and trinkets until we die. Does anyone actually say on their deathbed, "Hey, look, my pile of paper and trinkets is bigger than yours!!" Once we die, that paper and trinkets gets transferred to SOMEONE ELSE ANYWAY! So the point was…???
Third, if your identity is what you own, then all I can say is I feel sorry for you. No wonder there are so many miserable people in this country.
I've decided to take a new approach. I've decided that I'm successful because I've either completed or have in some form of production approximately 15 films. 15 FILMS! How many people have done 15 of anything that's valuable except collect 15 pairs of shoes or 15 watches. I'm creating. They're consuming.
I'm successful because my rented studio apartment is rodent and roach free, has 6 windows that face east (sunlight is very important to me) and is located in a safe and clean neighborhood.
I'm successful because I have a plan for my future AND because I'm putting effort and action towards my plan, daily. The first part of that sentence is worthless without the second part. First plan, then take MASSIVE action.
Do not let anyone tell you you're not successful because you don't have Bill Gates dollars or Oprah dollars. It's perverse that in the USA the only way to be successful is at the extreme end. We are, indeed, a nation of extremists. There's no middle ground with us, just one end of the spectrum or the other.
Success is simple—you set a goal and meet it. Period. No one else's opinions matter.
Here's what DIY filmmaker MdotStrangE has to say about this topic.
Wow, there are so many things wrong with this model, I'm not sure where to begin!
First, success is how you define YOURSELF. You're the only person that can define your success. How can someone else possibly tell you if you're successful or not? If you feel successful, then you are. Period.
Second, I refuse to believe that we spiritual beings—having a human experience here on Earth in the Milky Way galaxy—are here for NO OTHER REASON than to spend our few years alive collecting as many as possible pieces of green paper and trinkets until we die. Does anyone actually say on their deathbed, "Hey, look, my pile of paper and trinkets is bigger than yours!!" Once we die, that paper and trinkets gets transferred to SOMEONE ELSE ANYWAY! So the point was…???
Third, if your identity is what you own, then all I can say is I feel sorry for you. No wonder there are so many miserable people in this country.
I've decided to take a new approach. I've decided that I'm successful because I've either completed or have in some form of production approximately 15 films. 15 FILMS! How many people have done 15 of anything that's valuable except collect 15 pairs of shoes or 15 watches. I'm creating. They're consuming.
I'm successful because my rented studio apartment is rodent and roach free, has 6 windows that face east (sunlight is very important to me) and is located in a safe and clean neighborhood.
I'm successful because I have a plan for my future AND because I'm putting effort and action towards my plan, daily. The first part of that sentence is worthless without the second part. First plan, then take MASSIVE action.
Do not let anyone tell you you're not successful because you don't have Bill Gates dollars or Oprah dollars. It's perverse that in the USA the only way to be successful is at the extreme end. We are, indeed, a nation of extremists. There's no middle ground with us, just one end of the spectrum or the other.
Success is simple—you set a goal and meet it. Period. No one else's opinions matter.
Here's what DIY filmmaker MdotStrangE has to say about this topic.
TRON (1982) v. TRON: Legacy (2010)
In a nutshell: No contest!
The only way the new version wins is, of course, with the quality of the effects. I am not one of those people who watches movie to see cool effects. I expect more than that from my filmwatching experiences. If, however, you don't demand more than cool effects (and they weren't even that great) and cool music, then TRON: Legacy is for you.
First, I saw this movie in IMAX 3D. Throughout the movie I raised my glasses to see the difference and…there WAS no difference! Even Avatar had more 3D in it and I even felt that was paltry. Honestly, I could've paid considerably less than $22 per ticket to see it in 2D and had the SAME EXACT EXPERIENCE!
Second, the story was weak. The son-searching-for-father storyline was not engrossing mainly because the son came off as a spoiled, rich brat. Also, the thread about the programs entering the real world and taking over had about zero menace to it. I felt absolutely no fear whatsoever from the bad guy and his peeps.
Third, the CGI was orgiastic. Let's say it together folks: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because you can move the camera around 360 degrees doesn't mean you should. Both the disc battle and the light cycle scenes were ruined with crazy camera work that only succeeded in confusing the audience. Also, the jet wall left behind by the light cycles was not presented as being deathly. The odd choice was made to make the jet walls shimmery and water-like thereby undermining the fact that it's a WALL! We all know what happens when you slam a motorcycle into a wall.
The only positives I can give TRON: Legacy is that it's two hour running time didn't seem interminable and the music, by French group Daft Punk, was truly cool.
I was so disappointed by this film that I watched the original 20th anniversary DVD version upon arriving home. Wow, what a difference. Yes, the effects are cruder and the dialogue is just as cheesy as the sequel, but it had a lot more at stake in the storyline which is what, ultimately, kept me interested.
This movie was the last straw for me. I have vowed to see NO movies in the theater for 2011 with maybe the exception of "The Illusionist." My only doubts about that is the realistic rendering of the characters. That stylistic choice has a tendency to put me to sleep so I originally intended to see this one on DVD. We'll see. But aside from that, I've HAD IT! 3D is a scam to get more money out of us while still telling the same crappy stories. I can't take it any more.
Just more incentive for us to create our own work and get it out there. Let's do it!
A Decade Under the Influence—Part 1
I think it's important to dissect this documentary and the ideas expressed in it. The mindset of the film industry during that period produced some of the most memorable and iconic movies of the modern era. I think it's fascinating that a period of openness and experimentation evolved into today's mediocrity, fear of failure and lack of imagination.
Part 1 of the documentary is called "Influences and Independents." The studio system had died; the big studio heads—Louis B. Meyer, Darryl Zanuck, Jack Warner, Harry Cohn, et al—had either died, too, or sold their interests to non-filmmakers. These new studio heads were remarkable, in my opinion, because they knew they knew nothing about filmmaking. Instead of imposing their ignorant will onto the filmmakers—as they do today—they turned to the filmmakers and gave them free rein to do their thing. Imagine that, allowing an artist to CREATE without interference!
There was a new audience at this time, an audience experiencing Vietnam, Watergate, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Movement and general social confusion. People were questioning what had not been questioned before. Audiences were looking for something more meaningful and related to their own life experiences as opposed to the Rock Hudson/Doris Day glitz of the 50's. Audiences wanted something they recognized. The filmmakers expressed these feelings with their films.
The movies made during this period often thumbed their noses at the audience's values. They attempted to reflect life as it was as opposed to how the authorities wanted it to be.
I found all of this to be fascinating. As a child of the 70's and early 80's, combined with having a mother who was a film buff, I saw a lot of the social commentary movies from that period. To this day, films from that period are among my favorites. When I go to see a bad movie, like TRON: Legacy (to be reviewed in my next post), I'll often pop in a tape or DVD of "The Graduate" or "Network" to remind myself of what is a good movie.
Clint Eastwood summed things up nicely when he said that when making "Dirty Harry," they threw caution to the wind and just went for it, that they were FEARLESS.
I couldn't agree more.
A Decade Under the Influence Reviews to Come
I saw the documentary "A Decade Under the Influence" (2003) several years ago and decided to watch it again. Unfortunately, I realized that the one hour tape I had recorded from tv was only one third of the entire story. Netflix to the rescue!
Now I've finally watched the entire story. And it's a GREAT story. The film is about the origins of the wonderful social commentary movies that were released between about 1969 and 1980. Since I grew up during the '70's with a film-loving mother, I saw a few of these films in the theater and many more when I became older, often due to my mother's recommendations. Movies made in this period—Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Godfather, Midnight Cowboy, Coal Miner's Daughter—just would not get made today. They're the opposite of escapism and don't involve glamourous movie stars. It wasn't about looks or money during that period, it was about expressing the cultural upheaval going on at the time (Vietnam War, Watergate, oil crisis, recession, women's rights, civil rights, etc.)
The studio system had just ended and this milestone unleashed some tremendous creativity and, more importantly, FEARLESS FILMMAKING! Which is the POLAR OPPOSITE of what we have now. FEAR OF FAILURE drives the American film industry. I'm guessing that's why actors ask for so much money up front; if the movie tanks, they want to get something out of it. But if the budgets were lower then the risk would be minimized thereby allowing more fearlessness.
Anyway, the documentary is divided into three sections. I'll talk about what I learned in each section in later posts.
"Racist" Cartoons
I just watched on YouTube (thank the gods for YouTube!) three Warner Bros. cartoons that have been banned from television: "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs", "Goldilocks and the Jivin Bears" and "Uncle Tom's Cabaña."
My primary reason for watching them—aside from them having been censored—was that I was curious about how black women were drawn and caricatured at that time. All of the above films were made in the 1940's. This was THE period of exceptional animation art. For that reason, combined with the fact that there's very little caricature of blacks today, I realized that I could learn from these films. Here are my impressions:
1. The dictionary definition of racist involves superiority, hatred and intolerance. I believe we in the United States confuse racist, prejudice and stereotype too often. For example, the "jive-talking" robots in Transformers 2 were NOT racist. They were a stereotype (no less offensive, but I think it's important to get the terminology correct.) I have the same feeling about the banned cartoons. They are not racist because they don't depict white superiority, hatred or intolerance. What they DO show are stereotypes of blacks: lazy, poorly spoken, shooting dice, zoot suits.
I wasn't offended by these depictions because this was the 1940's for Christ's sake! The one thing that confused me more than offended was the depiction of thick lips. It's not the thickness that bothered me because these are caricatures; exaggerating features is part of cartooning. Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids all had thick lips and no one complained. What I DON'T understand is why both the lips and the palms of the hands were shown with such a light color, beige maybe. The contrast of that color against the brown skin of the characters is jarring and just bizarre. Also, the inner-tube design of the lips was weird. I know that was the common way to show black people's lips but it just looks so…odd.
2. Here's what Bob Clampett said in later years regarding Coal Black, taken from Wikipedia:
Bob Clampett himself explained the evolution of "Coal Black" during his public appearances in the 70s and 80s, and during taped interviews: "In 1942, during the height of anti-Japanese sentiment during WWII, I was approached in Hollywood by the cast of an all-black musical off-broadway production called "Jump For Joy" while they were doing some special performances in Low Angeles. They asked me why there weren't any Warner's cartoons with black characters and I didn't have any good answer for that question. So we sat down together and came up with a parody of Disney's "Snow White" and "Coal Black" was the result. They did all the voices for that cartoon, even though Mel Blanc's contract with Warners gave him sole voice credit for all Warners cartoons by then. There was nothing racist or disrespectful toward blacks intended in that film at all, nor in "Tin Pan Alley Cats" which is just a parody of jazz piano great Fats Waller, who was always hamming into the camera during his musical films. Everybody, including blacks had a good time when these cartoons first came out. All the controversy about these two cartoons has developed in later years merely because of changing attitudes toward black civil rights that have happened since then. Hopefully, someday all this overreaction to these innocently-intended cartoons, which we finished in 1943, will settle down and people will be able to see them in their proper historical context."
After reading this, it suddenly occurred to me what the common failing of these films is: they're not depicting the behavior of real people, just show people. In other words, all of the music-playing, dancing around and zoot suits, that's not how the average black person looked, sounded or behaved; that's how the black ENTERTAINERS of the day looked, sounded and behaved. Clampett developed Coal Black with a group of performers. Instead of them infusing the film with genuine behavior, they fell back on the stock performance behavior of blacks during that period.
3. It was surprising that both So White (that's actually the character's name in the film, much to my surprise. Coal Black is just a reference to her hair color.) and Goldie were not caricatured in the stock way. The only reason I can think for this is that despite them being black, they were perceived first as women. And male animators ALWAYS like to draw their women pretty!
So these films were great for my research. The designs for So White and Goldie look like the usual women from that time with some slight exaggeration in the noses and mouths. They're actually quite cute! I made a lot of screenshots of both from which to borrow for my design of Honey.
One last remark about the films: I don't think these, or anything, should be banned. A disclaimer explaining their historical context would be helpful since so many people are ignorant of history. But outright banning ends up burying history. And it's important—especially in a country with so many immigrants—that NONE of America's history be buried. Everyone should know that there was a time that despite their heroic participation in WWII, black GI's were still portrayed as mushmouthed dwarfs.
Out of the three, I thought Coal Black was the weakest. This surprised me since some animation historians think it's one of Clampett's best. Of course the animation is fantastic but the story was all over the place. Maybe combining the Snow White story and GI's simply didn't work. Uncle Tom's Cabaña was better; it had some clever ideas. I could have done without Little Eva's musical number, though (her facial design, too, I intend to borrow from for Honey.) The Jivin Bears was the standout. It was a fun take on the Goldilocks story and held together the best storywise.
I read that some of these banned films will be coming out on DVD soon. I'll be sure to add that to my collection.
My primary reason for watching them—aside from them having been censored—was that I was curious about how black women were drawn and caricatured at that time. All of the above films were made in the 1940's. This was THE period of exceptional animation art. For that reason, combined with the fact that there's very little caricature of blacks today, I realized that I could learn from these films. Here are my impressions:
1. The dictionary definition of racist involves superiority, hatred and intolerance. I believe we in the United States confuse racist, prejudice and stereotype too often. For example, the "jive-talking" robots in Transformers 2 were NOT racist. They were a stereotype (no less offensive, but I think it's important to get the terminology correct.) I have the same feeling about the banned cartoons. They are not racist because they don't depict white superiority, hatred or intolerance. What they DO show are stereotypes of blacks: lazy, poorly spoken, shooting dice, zoot suits.
I wasn't offended by these depictions because this was the 1940's for Christ's sake! The one thing that confused me more than offended was the depiction of thick lips. It's not the thickness that bothered me because these are caricatures; exaggerating features is part of cartooning. Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids all had thick lips and no one complained. What I DON'T understand is why both the lips and the palms of the hands were shown with such a light color, beige maybe. The contrast of that color against the brown skin of the characters is jarring and just bizarre. Also, the inner-tube design of the lips was weird. I know that was the common way to show black people's lips but it just looks so…odd.
2. Here's what Bob Clampett said in later years regarding Coal Black, taken from Wikipedia:
Bob Clampett himself explained the evolution of "Coal Black" during his public appearances in the 70s and 80s, and during taped interviews: "In 1942, during the height of anti-Japanese sentiment during WWII, I was approached in Hollywood by the cast of an all-black musical off-broadway production called "Jump For Joy" while they were doing some special performances in Low Angeles. They asked me why there weren't any Warner's cartoons with black characters and I didn't have any good answer for that question. So we sat down together and came up with a parody of Disney's "Snow White" and "Coal Black" was the result. They did all the voices for that cartoon, even though Mel Blanc's contract with Warners gave him sole voice credit for all Warners cartoons by then. There was nothing racist or disrespectful toward blacks intended in that film at all, nor in "Tin Pan Alley Cats" which is just a parody of jazz piano great Fats Waller, who was always hamming into the camera during his musical films. Everybody, including blacks had a good time when these cartoons first came out. All the controversy about these two cartoons has developed in later years merely because of changing attitudes toward black civil rights that have happened since then. Hopefully, someday all this overreaction to these innocently-intended cartoons, which we finished in 1943, will settle down and people will be able to see them in their proper historical context."
After reading this, it suddenly occurred to me what the common failing of these films is: they're not depicting the behavior of real people, just show people. In other words, all of the music-playing, dancing around and zoot suits, that's not how the average black person looked, sounded or behaved; that's how the black ENTERTAINERS of the day looked, sounded and behaved. Clampett developed Coal Black with a group of performers. Instead of them infusing the film with genuine behavior, they fell back on the stock performance behavior of blacks during that period.
3. It was surprising that both So White (that's actually the character's name in the film, much to my surprise. Coal Black is just a reference to her hair color.) and Goldie were not caricatured in the stock way. The only reason I can think for this is that despite them being black, they were perceived first as women. And male animators ALWAYS like to draw their women pretty!
So these films were great for my research. The designs for So White and Goldie look like the usual women from that time with some slight exaggeration in the noses and mouths. They're actually quite cute! I made a lot of screenshots of both from which to borrow for my design of Honey.
One last remark about the films: I don't think these, or anything, should be banned. A disclaimer explaining their historical context would be helpful since so many people are ignorant of history. But outright banning ends up burying history. And it's important—especially in a country with so many immigrants—that NONE of America's history be buried. Everyone should know that there was a time that despite their heroic participation in WWII, black GI's were still portrayed as mushmouthed dwarfs.
Out of the three, I thought Coal Black was the weakest. This surprised me since some animation historians think it's one of Clampett's best. Of course the animation is fantastic but the story was all over the place. Maybe combining the Snow White story and GI's simply didn't work. Uncle Tom's Cabaña was better; it had some clever ideas. I could have done without Little Eva's musical number, though (her facial design, too, I intend to borrow from for Honey.) The Jivin Bears was the standout. It was a fun take on the Goldilocks story and held together the best storywise.
I read that some of these banned films will be coming out on DVD soon. I'll be sure to add that to my collection.
Rough Animatic—Luthor & His Joint
I'm making significant progress with what I'm calling the "rough animatic." As I mentioned before (I think), although I was spending time making the animatic look presentable, I began to feel that the attention to detail was preventing me from envisioning the film in its entirety. I was so focused on drawing the characters and backgrounds well that the composition and flow of the story was suffering.
Now that I'm doing the animatic roughly—focusing on the cuts and timing instead of the quality of the drawings—I feel that I'm making better progress. Although I will have to spend the time to redraw the animatic so it looks better, at least I'll have the first version of the scenes complete. I'm kind of looking at this animatic as the "first draft" and the next version as the "rewrite." It works for writing, so why not for animated filmmaking?
Here's a little bit of what I've done:
And according to my current shot list (32 shots including opening and closing credits), I'm currently 40% done.
As of today, my goal is to complete the rough animatic by Jan. 1, 2011.
Here we go!
Now that I'm doing the animatic roughly—focusing on the cuts and timing instead of the quality of the drawings—I feel that I'm making better progress. Although I will have to spend the time to redraw the animatic so it looks better, at least I'll have the first version of the scenes complete. I'm kind of looking at this animatic as the "first draft" and the next version as the "rewrite." It works for writing, so why not for animated filmmaking?
Here's a little bit of what I've done:
And according to my current shot list (32 shots including opening and closing credits), I'm currently 40% done.
As of today, my goal is to complete the rough animatic by Jan. 1, 2011.
Here we go!
Practice Can't Make Perfect, Just BETTER!
I was so giddy while working on my rough animatic that I had to note something. With the drawing that I try to fit in on my bus commutes to and from work and during lunch time, I am truly seeing an improvement in my drawing!
I was drawing a few hands and even despite the roughness (which is why I can't show them to you…yet) I could feel and see that I was applying more knowledge to my drawing.
Let's keep practicing and learning!
I was drawing a few hands and even despite the roughness (which is why I can't show them to you…yet) I could feel and see that I was applying more knowledge to my drawing.
Let's keep practicing and learning!
Don't Fall for This!
First, I just realized that almost all of my blog post titles have exclamation points in them, as if I'm always SHOUTING AT YOU. I'll have to keep that to a minimum in the future.
Second, this was brought to my attention and I wanted to use it as an example to make a larger point. Once again, someone doesn't want to pay people for creating illustrations for them (Amid Amidi complains about this A LOT at Cartoon Brew). Why is art considered by non-artist to be "easy" and not worthy of compensation?
I apologize in advance if I've discussed this topic before but it's worth discussing again.
My advice is that NONE of us should work for free. Doctors, lawyers, police officers and elected officials don't work for free, why should we? I made the mistake of doing graphic design work for free and now feel guilty for contributing to the devaluing of the art industry. Never. Again. I do NOTHING for free and that includes "favors" for friends and family. I always ask for some form of compensation. If my request for compensation is declined, then I decline to do the work (I usually use the "I'm working on a project right now with a tight deadline, blah, blah" as the excuse.)
It's simple—everyone's time is worth something. Artistic endeavors take TIME. Therefore, they are deserving of compensation.
Period.
Second, this was brought to my attention and I wanted to use it as an example to make a larger point. Once again, someone doesn't want to pay people for creating illustrations for them (Amid Amidi complains about this A LOT at Cartoon Brew). Why is art considered by non-artist to be "easy" and not worthy of compensation?
I apologize in advance if I've discussed this topic before but it's worth discussing again.
My advice is that NONE of us should work for free. Doctors, lawyers, police officers and elected officials don't work for free, why should we? I made the mistake of doing graphic design work for free and now feel guilty for contributing to the devaluing of the art industry. Never. Again. I do NOTHING for free and that includes "favors" for friends and family. I always ask for some form of compensation. If my request for compensation is declined, then I decline to do the work (I usually use the "I'm working on a project right now with a tight deadline, blah, blah" as the excuse.)
It's simple—everyone's time is worth something. Artistic endeavors take TIME. Therefore, they are deserving of compensation.
Period.
Congratulations to Bill Plympton!
The film "The Cow who Wanted to be a Hamburger", made by independent animation genius, Bill Plympton, was among the 33 animated shorts eligible for Academy Award consideration. Now he's cleared a second hurdle by making the cut to the top 10.
I had the pleasure of being the FIRST person to sign up for (and send a check. That's what really counted!) Bill's FIRST animation school class. And every day that I work on my film, I try to keep in mind all of the tidbits he taught in those 14 weeks.
Best of luck, Bill!
I had the pleasure of being the FIRST person to sign up for (and send a check. That's what really counted!) Bill's FIRST animation school class. And every day that I work on my film, I try to keep in mind all of the tidbits he taught in those 14 weeks.
Best of luck, Bill!
Storyboard Pro 2 Tutorial #4—Staging & Composition
Next in the series of tutorials is staging and composition. This involves planning the drawings to leave space for the characters and their actions. It also involves designing the props and background elements to aid in telling the story.
This shot may not make it into the final, but I composed it to show what Honey's doing in the bathroom while Luthor's waiting for her in bed.
One thing I know for sure: animation is PLANNING! This is the biggest difference between animation and live-action filmmaking. With live-action, there are surprises that one can potentially use in the final cut. With animation, there are NO surprises. Every single thing that one sees on the screen was planned in advance. Unless you draw something unexpected are do a strange tweak in Maya, your animation will come out exactly as you planned it. Due to the effort required to make animation, there's no time for guesswork.
That's why I'm spending soooo much time on the animatic. EVERYTHING is to be worked out in this stage so once I get to the animation, I can focus on the characters's performances and not whether or not their actions will fit the frame. That I would've already determined.
Without further ado, Sherm Cohen's tutorial about staging & composition is here.
Here's how I staged and composed a scene in my animatic:
This shot may not make it into the final, but I composed it to show what Honey's doing in the bathroom while Luthor's waiting for her in bed.
One thing I know for sure: animation is PLANNING! This is the biggest difference between animation and live-action filmmaking. With live-action, there are surprises that one can potentially use in the final cut. With animation, there are NO surprises. Every single thing that one sees on the screen was planned in advance. Unless you draw something unexpected are do a strange tweak in Maya, your animation will come out exactly as you planned it. Due to the effort required to make animation, there's no time for guesswork.
That's why I'm spending soooo much time on the animatic. EVERYTHING is to be worked out in this stage so once I get to the animation, I can focus on the characters's performances and not whether or not their actions will fit the frame. That I would've already determined.
Without further ado, Sherm Cohen's tutorial about staging & composition is here.
Here's how I staged and composed a scene in my animatic:
Animatic—Luthor Does LL Cool J Lip Lick
After studying some video screenshots of LL doing his signature lip lick and observing my mouth in a mirror, I was able to get this to work! I consider it an accomplishment because when I did this 8 months ago, it was seriously lacking. This lip lick version is only for the animatic; I can't wait to see it when it's fully animated!
MAD Magazine Copying
I have ALWAYS LOVED the MAD Magazine style. I read MAD regularly in the 1980's, fascinated by the semi-realistic and amazingly accurate renderings of actors.
Around that time, I somehow came into the possession of a 1950's MAD paperback.
Wow.
I loved how everything was drawn. The folds in the clothes, the expressions, the hands. Incredible. A lot of it was Mort Drucker, by the way.
Once I saw Will Eisner's work, I made a somewhat presumptuous decision—I wanted to draw like that!
Considering how NO ONE (I've seen, at least) draws like those guys anymore, I thought, why not me?
My first step in realizing this goal was to purchase lots of Will Eisner's work, including his how-to books.
The second step was to get the old MAD work. Luckily, I found a fantastic collection of MAD work—October 1952-December 2005—all on one DVD.
The third step…start drawing!
I've printed out a few pages of the first issue and I copy it while riding to and from work on the bus. I'm slowly learning some cartoon tricks that these dudes back then used, stuff you just don't see anymore.
I hope to make what's old new again, making my small contribution to the improvement of the animation industry.
Around that time, I somehow came into the possession of a 1950's MAD paperback.
Wow.
I loved how everything was drawn. The folds in the clothes, the expressions, the hands. Incredible. A lot of it was Mort Drucker, by the way.
Once I saw Will Eisner's work, I made a somewhat presumptuous decision—I wanted to draw like that!
Considering how NO ONE (I've seen, at least) draws like those guys anymore, I thought, why not me?
My first step in realizing this goal was to purchase lots of Will Eisner's work, including his how-to books.
The second step was to get the old MAD work. Luckily, I found a fantastic collection of MAD work—October 1952-December 2005—all on one DVD.
The third step…start drawing!
I've printed out a few pages of the first issue and I copy it while riding to and from work on the bus. I'm slowly learning some cartoon tricks that these dudes back then used, stuff you just don't see anymore.
I hope to make what's old new again, making my small contribution to the improvement of the animation industry.
Index Card Storyboard/Doodles
Monday I posted some of my index card storyboard doodles. They started as an exercise and turned into a productive tool.
I'm embracing the idea that storytelling does not involve vomiting out whatever first comes up and showing that to the world. I'm understanding and appreciating that creativity is a SEARCH for the BEST SOLUTION. I should already know that since I work as a graphic designer; in that discipline, there's always an immediate, first idea. But that's often not the best one. What's best is the idea communicates most effectively. And that's exactly what I'm doing with this film, searching for the best way to communicate my story.
I had decided that I wanted my animatic to be as well-drawn as I could make it so I could show it to the world proudly. But that decision is also holding up my process.
So last weekend I pulled out a stack of 3"x 5" index cards that I had bought to help with my screenwriting. I read that putting scenes on cards was a helpful way to organize the chronology of one's story; cards can be easily moved around and reshuffled.
I thought I'd try something similar with my storyboard/animatic. I turned the cards to the blank side and quickly doodled every scene idea I had for the opening of the film. I ended up with about 100 cards similar to the ones above. I spread them on my dining table and shuffled them around, searching for the sequence of events that was most concise and most communicative.
It worked! What had originally been a long, involved opening sequence was now short, funny and to the point. By not focusing on doing great drawings but instead on what I wanted to communicate, I came up with a variety of ideas from which I was able to choose the best. I can always improve the drawings; what's important NOW is getting the story action solidified.
These scenes could still change, but I'm confident that I've explored all of the options and have chosen the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)